Re: A glossary of Pitmanese

On Feb 21, 10:32 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Feb 21, 12:36 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Feb 21, 8:10 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.

0catch.com> wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:25 pm, Scooter the Mighty <Greyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The observation is a negative observation that is indeed falsifiable
by a single example of a positive. You do understand that negative
hypotheses are quite useful in science?

Sure, but they involve someone specifically looking for something and
not being able to find it. Can you link me up with a paper in which
someone has looked for evolving fairly specified 1000aa protiens and
not found them?

No one talks about any limitations to evolution in action in
literature.

What do you think this paper is about?http://www.springerlink.com/content/n6m6436248j02gg2/

The abstract suggests that it is presenting a model of evolution which
can be tested against the evidence. It even uses some of terms you
use, such as "random walk", though I suspect that the authors of this
paper actually *understand* such terms, and that their mathematical
model does not consist of numbers pulled out of the fundament of a
fundamentalist.

Why not read it and then tell us why it is flawed.
I doubt that it supports your assertions.

You are back to your usual reference mining I see.

Another term for the glossary, Sean:
"reference mining" - using references to scientific papers

Come on Richard.
If you list a reference, quote the part of that reference that you
think is relevant. In particular, quote the part of the reference
that deals with the evolution of novel systems that require at least
1000aa working at the same time where each individual amino acid
residue is required to be in a fairly specific orientation relative
all the others.

Why on earth should I, Sean?

You are insisting that there is a threshold at 1000aa which evolution
cannot cross in "real time".

1) You have provided no way by which that threshold can be calculated
2) There is no requirement in science that observations should be in
"real time"
3) It is not a prediction of evolutionary theory that we should be
able to observe such change in "real time".
4) You have specifically excluded changes to existing functions as
being valid examples of such changes
5) You insist on a model of the adaptive landscape which is not
supported by evidence, and which is completely different from that
used by evolutionary biologists
6) You have not demonstrated that evolution "stalls out" at any level
7) You have not provided any alternative, testable explanation for the
evidence that evolutionary processes can cross your arbitrary
"threshold"
8) You have conceded that the explanation you have offered, which is
"common design" has no predictive value and therefore cannot be
tested.

RF


RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A glossary of Pitmanese
    ... evolved, and which demand far more than your "1000aa" to evolve. ... Since when has "real time evidence" been a requirement for science. ... So why are you insisting that we need to observe evolution in "real ... 1000aa threshold. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Another of Richards Strawman "Lists"
    ... famous for doing this - listing off dozens of reference with nothing ... that deals with the evolution of novel systems that require at least ... Your evolutionary mechanism doesn't not cross this threshold in real ... to evolve in real time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin Was Wrong (Apparently)
    ... And all without, apparently, a single reference to the actual scientific ... (Science, vol 284, p 2124). ... (Journal of Systematics and Evolution, vol 46, p263). ... (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p17023). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 99% Ape - How Evolution Doesnt Add Up
    ... evolution in terms of science and non-science, as if to say that if ... you disagree with evolution you are not a scientist. ... so right away we see that creationism isn't science. ... how to defend a reference that is completely ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: IDentity Crisis
    ... no identity independent of evolution. ... science, ID doesn't even exist. ... Challenge an antievolutionist to explain ID without reference to ...
    (talk.origins)